Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 193473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2019, 11:50:10 PM »
In 2007, French SSPX priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier, wrote a book called "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists."

It was a hallucination which seems in many respects to have been adopted by Bishop Fellay as the blueprint for the ralliement.

The book was subjected to a remarkable critique by a Frenchman named Paul Chaussee, who it seems to us has hit the nail on the head.

Because of the length of the critique (42 pages/7 of endnotes), I am attaching the translation, rather than copy/pasting it.

If you study any one single docuмent regarding the ralliement of the SSPX, and desire to know its causes and methods, YOU NEED TO STUDY THIS DOcuмENT.

THIS

IS

IT!

PS: You will need to log in to see/read/download the translation.

Offline X

Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #101 on: April 05, 2019, 06:18:49 PM »

M
4th April 2019

Dear Parents,

As promised to some of you, I would like to give you a summary of what has motivated my resigning
from the Society of Saint Pius X twenty-five years after having received the habit of the Oblate sisters.

Since the April 2017 acceptation by the Society of the “marriage deal” offered by Pope Francis, I have
had the conviction that the Society was no longer protecting the faithful from the modernist Church.
More and more we were told that the Catholic Church and the official Church are one and the same
thing, both being visible, whereas the profession of the true Faith is the first criterion for being a
member of the Catholic Church, a criterion that modernists bishops, for instance, do not match. I
started to feel very uneasy with belonging to the Society, because it meant supporting these new ideas
that Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly refuted and against which he had warned us many times in plain
language.

I was advised to wait until the next General Chapter of the Society, due to take place in July 2018,
before making any life-changing decision. Which I did. There was an expectation that a new Superior
General would reverse the doomed course of the Society.

However, I was well aware that the Superior General’s mission is to implement the decisions of the
Chapter. Therefore, I waited until the Acts of the Chapter were published to make up my mind. On
September 18th we were sent extracts of the Acts of the Chapter. They concerned the marriages, the
Society’s relations with Rome and the prelature. At the end of this reading, all my doubts were gone
and I was sure that I had to leave the Society of Saint Pius X if I wanted to remain faithful to the
teaching and recommendations of our Founder. The asking of the delegation of the modernist bishops
for marriages was made mandatory for all priests of the Society; we were recommended to practice a
“charitable attitude” towards any bishop, clergy or faithful without qualification, as long as they were
“friendly towards tradition”. This opened the door to anything and everything in terms of
collaboration with clergy and laity who were not fully committed to the defence of Catholic Tradition.
You know which fruit these deliberately vague notions bore at Saint Michael’s School when the
Headmaster invited the conciliar diocesan bishop to lead the children’s prayer in our chapel, after
having collected for him a spiritual bouquet meant at expressing “our gratitude”. Gratitude for what?
For having said at an interfaith forum that Catholic Christians do not deny the moral freedom to
choose for or against the Truth of Christ1? 

A statement which is religious liberty in a nutshell, in total
contradiction with Our Lord’s words (Mark, 16-16). 
Or gratitude for having asked Muslims to pray (to
whom?) for us2?

But to return to the chronology of the events, on that evening of 18th September I decided to leave
the Society. This was however the end of the first week of the new academic year and it was obvious
that leaving at that point was not an option. So, for the sake of the children and of you, dear Parents,
I decided to stay until the end of the academic year.

One day in February, the Headmaster told me that he had invited the modernist bishop of Portsmouth
to come and visit the school. He asked me to organize a spiritual bouquet for him, which I accepted to
do, having no notion that it was meant “in gratitude”. I decided nevertheless to prepare the children
to be wary of the bishop by telling them that he did a few things that showed he needed prayers and
sacrifices like saying the New Mass and distributing Holy Communion in the hand.

At the next staff meeting, Father Brucciani told the staff that not only Bishop Egan was to visit the
school, but that he would furthermore lead the children in the prayer of the Rosary in the chapel. I
put my hand up and said that I would not go and pray with the diocesan bishop in our chapel. Although
both the Headmaster and the Superior of District spent a lot of time and energy in trying to convince
the Sisters that there was no problem with their plan, on 8th March none of the Sisters turned up in
chapel for the bishop-led Rosary, as each of them, of her own accord, had decided that she could not
in conscience attend that event. This abstention was to trigger more pressure being put on the Sisters.

This would have been something to offer up and I would still be at the school if things had stayed at
that.

However, after Bishop Egan’s visit the Headmaster told the children in a sermon on Wednesday that
the Bishop of Portsmouth was a man of good will, that he was not bad. Now if you say to a child that
a berry is not bad, she will put it in her mouth, because it means it is good, or at least harmless. But a
modernist bishop is not a harmless preacher (see above). He carries about him all of the harmful spirit
of Vatican II, destructive of the Catholic Faith. At that juncture, it became clear to me that the
children’s trust was captured for the benefit of a person unworthy of it, who had all the trimmings of
a Catholic bishop, but not the Faith of a Catholic bishop. How can children discern the fraud? On the
other hand, how could the children who knew about the problem of Vatican II understand that one of
its faithful spokesmen had led their prayer in our Catholic chapel? As Father John Brucciani had
ordered me a little before not to talk to the children about Bishop Egan, I realized that I would not be
able to protect the children’s Faith any more from this subtle poisoning of their Faith and the slow
subversion of their trust in either their parents, the Sisters or their priests, depending on whom their
limited understanding would bring them to side with.

In such circuмstances my presence at the school made no more sense, as I was not there to teach
academics in the first place, but to teach the Catholic Faith and foster Catholic spiritual and moral life
in my young charges.

Additionally, every day of my presence on campus in the habit of the Oblates of the Society was a tacit
approval of the school leadership, which had become at odds with my conscience.

Consequently, I decided to leave the school during the Holy Week, so as to have time to prepare my
very young pupils and the whole primary school to my departure. I told the Headmaster unofficially
of my decision a little ahead of time of its realisation so that he, too, could have some time (five weeks)
to get everything ready for the start of Trinity term.

On 25th March I posted my resignation to the Superior General of the Society.

On 27th March, the Second Assistant to the Superior General came to our school, listen to what I had
to say about the situation in our school and parish in general and, more specifically, about the “Bishop
Egan’s crisis”. He offered me to take back my resignation, which was out of question. His conclusion 
was that I had to leave “as soon as possible”. The next morning, I was not allowed to go to school in
order to avoid creating a stir.

On 30th March I left the school and the New Society of Saint Pius X in order to be able to observe
faithfully what I had promised to observe on the day of my engagement in that dearly beloved Society
as founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.

At the moment I am most charitably accommodated by faithful of Father King’s Saint Gregory’s
Mission in Southport. I can attend Holy Mass daily and prepare my next step in the religious life.
I would like to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your truly wonderful support in the last
days of my presence at Saint Michael’s School. It helped me go through those painful hours. I was
struck by the grief that many of you expressed in one way or another. This made me more aware of
the strong bond of charity that unites us in Our Lord Jesus Christ and that we have woven together
over the last fifteen years. This bond remains untouched, it has perhaps even gained in strength while
we were sharing in the pain of an abrupt separation. I keep you all in my prayers, especially during
Holy Mass. Please, keep praying for me, too!

May Our Blessed Lady keep you all in Her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart which will always be our
meeting point.

Yours most gratefully,
Sister Mary-Elizabeth

http://www.portsmouthdiocese.org.uk/bishop/docs/20171109-BoP-Talk-I...
http://www.portsmouthdiocese.org.uk/enews/mosque-visit.php Note that Bishop Egan wrote “I joined them
[the Muslims in the mosque] for Friday prayers”.


Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2024, 09:06:07 PM »

Issue 26 | Spring 2024
Sorrowful Heart of Mary SSPX-MC
 Spring 2024
Dear Few, Happy Few!
 
In every renewed surge of persecution against the Church it seems the Good God is always
pleased to dwindle His friends down to a few. Why few? Because:
 
1.) It’s a lot easier for the majority of men to follow the crowd,
 
2.) It obliges those who remain faithful to understand the principles of the Faith and to truly love Christ the Savior, for Whom they must be ready to die, and
 
3.) God is pleased to purge His followers, as gold is tried in the fire.
 
How often He is pleased to sift the wheat from the chaff! But we must be careful and walk prayerfully and humbly, for it sometimes happens that good wheat falls to become chaff and chaff becomes outstanding wheat! St. Paul was chaff, but became the best of the Lord’s wheat, and a Bishop Nestor who was good wheat became chaff and a heresiarch!
 
The faithful few begin to feel the pinch and sting of the price of fidelity to Christ when they are singled out, ignored by once smiling friends, persecuted, and find themselves quite alone, humanly speaking. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre once said that even if the whole world went with the Conciliar Church and he stood abandoned by all, he still has Christ the King and all the saints in Heaven with him. He could point to all the Popes of Tradition and the shining ancient Magisterium and say “I stand with the Catholic Church not the “Conciliar” Church! They were right in previous ages, they will be right in this apostate age, despite the fact that the whole world seems to have turned its back on the Faith and Mass of all time!”
 
Fidelity of the few seems to please Our Lord very much. Fewness echoes back to the Flood of Noah, for only eight were saved in the ark. Few survived the fire and brimstone of Sodom and Gomorrah, because they were faithful to God. Few marched around the walls of Jericho and few were sifted out, by God’s will, to fight with Gideon’ army. Judith and her maids, won the victory over General Holerfernes; fewer still, would refuse to bend their knees to the pagan gods with Daniel the Prophet. The Maccabees entered battle with the insanely small number of 300 against 48,000 Syrians, and won! Our Lord reveals “Many are called, few are chosen.” And, “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Mt. 7:14). Few were His Apostles, and even that small number was shaken with the denials of St. Peter and ѕυιcιdє of Judas!
 
The first three hundred years of the Catholic Church was a constant purging under the ten violent waves of the Roman persecutions. Then, in the age of the great Fathers of the Church, how few stood with Tradition when the “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian!” as St. Jerome recorded. St. Athanasius was the laughing stock of bishops, he was condemned in frequent synods, excommunicated by a weak Pope, and ran for his life numerous times! The few faithful Catholics were scornfully labeled “Athanasians” by the prevailing Arians. But Truth stands on its own, no matter how few profess it!
 
Shall we not forget the few Catholics in the time of the English persecutions when only one bishop, St. John Fisher, and a handful of priests stood publicly opposed to the new Religion? What of the relatively few found constant in all of France, when over half the bishops and priests signed the Oath of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790, and only the Catholics in the Vendee region rose up unanimously to resist the New Masonic Regime?
 
What of the relatively few who resisted the Communist persecution of the Church in Spain from 1936 to 1939? Also in Mexico, from 1926 to 1930, where the Cristeros and clergy boldly resisted the Freemasonic persecution? But with each of the three successive waves of attacks, the Cristeros were increasingly betrayed and deserted by the bishops and priests, down to 1937 and beyond. Then, when the liberal bishops handed all the names of the Cristeros generals to the Masons, they were hunted down like wild animals and hung up on telephone poles, for years to come. In each case, the majority of Catholics went along with the status quo, slid with the popular current, and turned their backs on those defending Truth.
 
Then, lo and behold, the Second Vatican Council hit the Church from 1962 to 1965! This was the “French Revolution” in the Church bringing in the new Masonic Regime! This was the “October Revolution” of the Communists penetrating within the walls of the Vatican! 250 bishops stood with Tradition, 250 bishops were progressive Modernists and the other 2,000 bishops floated somewhere in the middle!
 
Shall we go on? After the nuclear blast of Vatican II, when the dust somewhat settled, Abp.Lefebvre found himself quite alone in defending Tradition. There were a few bishops clandestinely applauding him from the sidelines, but only one publicly rallied with him around the banner of Christ the King, that was Bp. De Castro Mayer. When Modernist Rome tried to stop the first wave of Catholic Resistance by leveling an, albeit, null and void suspension ‘a divinis’ against Abp. Lefebvre, in 1976, many defected from the true Resistance, but he forged forward.
 
Then, in 1988, Abp. Lefebvre was forced to consecrate bishops for the survival of the Catholic Faith and valid sacraments. The Catholic Faith must continue! Tradition must continue! Modernist Rome, now in the grip of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic forces (as proven by the docuмent Nostra Aetate and scandalous ecuмenical-Assisi meetings) leveled a null and void “excommunication”.
 
This nearly scared the skin off many who stood with Abp. Lefebvre. But Modernist Rome had a quick solution. They promised the fence-sitters: “We’ll let you have your nostalgic Mass and rites, as your particular ‘charisma’, but you must accept certain aspects of Vatican II as well as accept the New Mass as ‘legitimately promulgated’, and we even promise you a bishop in the future.” Those priests who abandoned the True Catholic Resistance with Abp. Lefebvre now joined the first wave of the Fake Resistance set up by Ecclesia Dei with St. Peter’s Fraternity! Abp. Lefebvre said they were doing the Devil’s work. Their key error: putting Liturgy above Doctrine.
 
Shall we continue with the next attempts of the Devil to infiltrate and neutralize the world’s last bastion of Catholic Resistance; the Society of St. Pius X? It was cleverly prepared by the GREC meetings that Bp. Fellay approved of, by sending priests to their discussions in the 1990’s.
 
Then, Modernist Rome made its attempts to lure the SSPX leaders into fresh sessions of dialogue, knowing full well that the now-deceased Abp. Lefebvre adamantly refused all discussions until Rome returns to Catholic Tradition. For him, there must be no discussions “until Rome re-crowns Our Lord Jesus Christ as King of all nations and peoples.” This was a principle based on the primacy of the Faith. Admire the beauty of it! For Abp. Lefebvre and the saints, it is always Faith before Liturgy; Doctrine above morality and canon law! Christ the King always first!
 
But the ancient serpent seduced the leaders of the SSPX by thinking that they could do better than our Founder, convincing them that “now is no longer the time for the outdated ‘88-ism’, things are different now”, “we have new friends in Rome” and, as for the Society’s abnormal situation, “Rome will not tolerate it any longer” (Bp. Fellay). So, dialogue was re-opened in 2010, brashly casting aside all the warnings of our Founder. The bar was lowered from: first and foremost defending the Faith, to now: “having our approval for the traditional Liturgy.”
 
Now, the SSPX leaders will settle with: 1. the lifting of the so-called “excommunications” and 2. the phony semblance of having the “abrogation lifted” to say the ‘62 Latin Mass Missal, as the conditions for trusting Rome’s good will. The error: placing Liturgy above Doctrine.
 
Then, in 2012, the tragic Vatican II Revolution within the SSPX took place. The General Chapter of that summer overthrew the principles laid down by Abp. Lefebvre and the 2006 General Chapter, and the leaders signed the Doctrinal Declaration along with the “Six Conditions For The Agreement With Rome.” This was the “thirty pieces of silver” paying for the “unilateral recognition” from unconverted Rome! “Because they have deceived My people, saying: Peace, peace: when there is no peace.” (Ezekiel 13:10).
 
In 2012, there arose simultaneously the second wave of the Catholic Resistance. Most priests and faithful slid with the new direction of the Conciliar-SSPX, all the while pretending “nothing has changed, everything is the same”. Yet, priests were expelled and silenced, faithful were refused Communion, talks and publications were disseminated in support of the new liberal direction. The Angelus magazine announced a new ‘non-militant approach’ to defending the Faith and that would now focus on liturgical chant, aesthetics and architecture. Pressure was now applied to the priests to stop condemning the Agreement with Modernist Rome and start seeing the positive side of the Conciliar Church (in fact, Bp. Fellay will stop calling it the “Conciliar Church” altogether), they must tone down the condemnations of immodest dress and immoral vac*#+*nes from the pulpits, they must not mention political figures, etc., etc.
 
Finally, in 2015 and 2017, the “thirty pieces of silver” of the Doctrinal Declaration paid off, in full. Pope Francis granted the SSPX the “favors” of jurisdiction for confessions, marriages, and holy orders. Bp. Fellay will remark: “This is not a trap!” But in fact, the neutralizing of the Society founded by Abp. Lefebvre was complete! They are at last reduced to silence! (Aside from a few insignificant peeps from uninfluential quarters).
 
Now, in this milieu, even fewer priests and faithful, worldwide, rose up with the second wave of the Catholic Resistance. But there were still enough to rebuild. There was still hope for a resurgence. A seminary was started in Kentucky in 2013, a handful of priests were still speaking out, and most were wholeheartedly committed to continue the work of Abp. Lefebvre. However, this was the opportune time to stifle once again, any possible resurgence of the work of Abp. Lefebvre. This time there arose the second wave of the Fake Resistance, headed by Bp. Williamson!
 
By 2017, not one of the bishops consecrated by Abp. Lefebvre would be found to fearlessly maintain his position; they had all been successfully neutralized! Bp. Williamson would soon squelch any hopes of resurgence by mocking the true Catholic Resistance, labeling it a reaction of “Resistants” who needed to, once and for all, “put away the toys” in their hopes of continuing Abp. Lefebvre’s work. Erroneous opinions were then recklessly introduced in his conferences and Eleison Comments, such as: “the New Mass can nourish your faith,” “the New Mass gives grace,” “this is not the time for structure and organization,” “this is not the time for seminaries as envisioned by the Council of Trent,” “scientific proof supports the New Mass miracles,” “The Thuc line poses no problem now,” etc., etc. Thus, was issued-in an entire blizzard of novelties and confusion totally and systematically opposed to the positions of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre!
 
Now, by 2024, not one of the six or seven bishops consecrated by Bp. Williamson publicly oppose his erroneous opinions so dangerous to the Faith! Not one is heard (at least until now), to openly maintain the doctrinal position of Abp. Lefebvre, our founder! How did the champion of Catholic Tradition come to be so quickly buried and forgotten by his own sons? How could they forget his warnings about the danger of compromise with Modernist Rome, Vatican II, and the New Mass? Why are they all silent and work in silence? Where is the missionary spirit? Why do so few courageously stand with the true Catholic Resistance as publicly and unmistakably upheld by Abp. Lefebvre? Why the criminal silence against the scandals of Modernist Rome and the diocesan bishops? What happened to the primacy of the Faith? What happened to the primacy of Doctrine? What happened to the fight for the public Rights of Christ the King? What ever happened to working for Rome’s conversion to Tradition? What happened to the goal of re-Christianizing politics, economics, the family and all social institutions? What happened to rebuilding the Catholic City?
 
Fulfilled now are the prophetic words of Our Lady of Fatima, “only She can help you!” Only the powerful Queen of the Holy Rosary can solve this! Let us beg Her as Her devoted children, to step in quickly and grant the Church at last, a truly Catholic Pope, fearless bishops and priests who proclaim the Social Reign of the Sacred Heart of Jesus! Let us fervently pray and offer penances for all our traditional bishops, they can still regain their first fervor! “I have one somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity!” (Apocalypse 2:4).
 
Indeed, Truth does not depend on numbers! God is pleased with a faithful few who know their nothingness and totally depend on Him and on the one He gave us as our exclusive help in this atheistic age; the Queen of the Holy Rosary! In Her hands is placed the Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary in Wentworth, New Hampshire. All it’s apostolate belongs to Her! The work of Abp. Lefebvre continues! Keep fighting, we few, we happy few!
 
In Christ the King,
 
Fr. David Hewko
“Let the storm rage and the sky darken — not for that shall we be dismayed. If we trust as we should in Mary, we shall recognize in her, the Virgin Most Powerful who with virginal foot did crush the head of the serpent.”
– Pope St. Pius X
Contacts and Resources
  • Rev. Fr. David Hewko can be reached at 315-391-7575 or fr.d.hewko@gmail.com
  • Correspondence mailing address and Mass Requests and Stipends: Rev. Fr. David Hewko, Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary, 66 Goves Lane, Wentworth, NH 03282
  • Donations: Checks can be made out to Sorrowful Heart of Mary Inc., 66 Goves Lane, Wentworth, NH 03282; or electronic donations can be made via PayPal.
  • Sermons, Catechism, Conferences, and Mass Schedules can be found primarily on SSPX-MC website, as well as the St. Mary’s Kansas Resistance website, and The Catacombs website.


Offline Meg

Re: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #103 on: August 28, 2024, 08:55:33 AM »
Issue 26 | Spring 2024
Sorrowful Heart of Mary SSPX-MC
Spring 2024
Erroneous opinions were then recklessly introduced in his conferences and Eleison Comments, such as: “the New Mass can nourish your faith,” “the New Mass gives grace,” “this is not the time for structure and organization,” “this is not the time for seminaries as envisioned by the Council of Trent,” “scientific proof supports the New Mass miracles,” “The Thuc line poses no problem now,” etc., etc. Thus, was issued-in an entire blizzard of novelties and confusion totally and systematically opposed to the positions of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre!

As to the quotes that Fr. Hewko insists that +W has said, +W did not give a general statement that the new mass can give grace, but it was just one woman that he said that to. And....he has since retracted that statement, if I recall correctly.

And, did +W really say that this is not the time for seminaries as envisioned by the council of Trent? Well, one thought that comes to mind is that any chapel or seminary that operates in an independent manner would not have been envisioned by Trent. With the Crisis, of course it is important for seminaries to exist outside of the conciliar church structure. However, the non-Hewkonian Resistance has three seminiaries, as far as I know: the Dominicans of Avrille, Fr. Chazal's seminary in Cebu, Bp. Thomas Aquinas seminary in Brazil, and there's one other that I can't recall just now. Of course there isn't one in the U.S. For some reason, +Z doesn't seem to be keen on the idea of a seminary. How many seminaries does Fr. Hewko have?

+W did say that scientific evidence/proof supports new mass miracles, and that has been discussed here quite a lot. +ABL believed that the new mass is valid by illicit. The question may be....can grace be conferred in a mass that is illicit? I don't think that's been settled yet.

I don't believe that +W has said that the Thuc line poses no problems now. Can you provide the exact quote for this?